<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time Warner focusing on education and tools to measure bandwidth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wetwired.org/2009/04/16/time-warner-focusing-on-education-and-tools-to-measure-bandwidth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wetwired.org/2009/04/16/time-warner-focusing-on-education-and-tools-to-measure-bandwidth/</link>
	<description>Good times, Noodle salad</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:54:16 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: SrRav1981</title>
		<link>http://www.wetwired.org/2009/04/16/time-warner-focusing-on-education-and-tools-to-measure-bandwidth/comment-page-1/#comment-2737</link>
		<dc:creator>SrRav1981</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wetwired.org/?p=2502#comment-2737</guid>
		<description>There was a good article about this today on MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229181/

they point out how other providers are testing doing the same thing but their base cap is 4 times higher then time warners for less!

Time Warner, the nation&#039;s third-largest Internet service provider, in its five experimental markets is offering 5 gigabytes of downloaded Internet content for $29.95 per month.

The largest ISP, AT&amp;T, says it started similar trials Nov. 1 in Beaumont, Texas, and in Reno, offering between 20GB ($19.95) and 150GB ($65) per month depending on connection speed, with excess usage charged at $1 per gigabyte.



I also wouldn&#039;t be surprised if they then offer an &quot;unlimited&quot; package for $100, which points this all back to, marketing to get more money. 

Back in the day with the internet was new, phone companies tried to do a similar thing. they were mad because customers were now tieing up phone lines for hours on end using them for internet. the ISP&#039;s got money but they didn&#039;t get a dime and were upset that their hardware was being used and they were having to beef up their phone network to handle the traffic and they weren&#039;t making more money, so they cried, and got smacked down by the FCC when they said, hell no, you will not charge customers for using your phone lines for internet. you gave them a phone line and told them they could use it when ever, it&#039;s not their fault you didn&#039;t plan for more people using it for a longer period of time.

sounds like the same argument from time warner, people are downloading movies and stuff on their network and now they are going to have to beef it up to meet demand and they think they should get more money because users are using it in the way it was sold to them, live, always on conneciton you can use 24x7..... course they didn&#039;t actually plan for as many people using it in the way it was intended.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a good article about this today on MSNBC</p>
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229181/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229181/</a></p>
<p>they point out how other providers are testing doing the same thing but their base cap is 4 times higher then time warners for less!</p>
<p>Time Warner, the nation&#8217;s third-largest Internet service provider, in its five experimental markets is offering 5 gigabytes of downloaded Internet content for $29.95 per month.</p>
<p>The largest ISP, AT&amp;T, says it started similar trials Nov. 1 in Beaumont, Texas, and in Reno, offering between 20GB ($19.95) and 150GB ($65) per month depending on connection speed, with excess usage charged at $1 per gigabyte.</p>
<p>I also wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if they then offer an &#8220;unlimited&#8221; package for $100, which points this all back to, marketing to get more money. </p>
<p>Back in the day with the internet was new, phone companies tried to do a similar thing. they were mad because customers were now tieing up phone lines for hours on end using them for internet. the ISP&#8217;s got money but they didn&#8217;t get a dime and were upset that their hardware was being used and they were having to beef up their phone network to handle the traffic and they weren&#8217;t making more money, so they cried, and got smacked down by the FCC when they said, hell no, you will not charge customers for using your phone lines for internet. you gave them a phone line and told them they could use it when ever, it&#8217;s not their fault you didn&#8217;t plan for more people using it for a longer period of time.</p>
<p>sounds like the same argument from time warner, people are downloading movies and stuff on their network and now they are going to have to beef it up to meet demand and they think they should get more money because users are using it in the way it was sold to them, live, always on conneciton you can use 24&#215;7&#8230;.. course they didn&#8217;t actually plan for as many people using it in the way it was intended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>